I'm not picky which CoC we use, but the fact that upstream requires approval shouldn't disqualify PSF. Part of my argument is that our contributions benefit a larger community. If PSF needs an enforcement clause, they might be more than willing to adopt the change -- and a bigger community would certainly benefit.
The goal should be to participate in and contribute to something broad. PSF woudl be great. A little Googling identified some other referenced CoCs (Twitter, Ubuntu, GDC, OSI, Gnome, Mozilla) -- see https://openhatch.org/wiki/Project_codes_of_conduct for these and more examples -- as well as the "Contributor Covenant" that claims ~30 projects as participants and accepts PRs: http://contributor-covenant.org/ It seems likely that at least one of these options provides both a good starting point and an acceptable governance policy. Clayton On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 4:49 PM, David Reid <dr...@dreid.org> wrote: > While it should not in theory be difficult to update the PSF CoC, in > practice I expect it would be quite difficult for the simple reason that: > > "This document was approved by the membership of the Python Software > Foundation during the vote which concluded on 19 April 2013." > > Implying that any updates to the CoC would also need to be approved by a > vote of the membership. > > So while it'd be nice for the PSF CoC to be updated such that it was > enforceable I think that should block adoption of a CoC by the Twisted > Project. > > I'm a +1 on adopting the Django CoC. > > -David > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Jason J. W. Williams < > jasonjwwilli...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Apologies...editing while on a call. >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:51 PM, Steve Waterbury >> <water...@pangalactic.us> wrote: >> > On 06/23/2015 03:31 PM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:59 AM, David Reid <dr...@dreid.org> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I'm going to come out strongly against using the PSF CoC. It is >> woefully >> >>> inadequate, it includes no mechanisms for reporting, and as any PSF >> >>> member >> >>> who has been on certain mailing lists knows it is actually completely >> >>> unenforceable. >> >> >> >> >> >> Enforcing CoCs is hard, and to that end I don't think adding a section >> >> to the PSF CoC indicating who will act as arbiter for enforcement and >> >> what the stages of remediation available to the arbiters are. >> > >> > >> > With all due respect ;), that is not a well-formed sentence ... >> > this part of it: >> > >> > "adding a section >> > to the PSF CoC indicating who will act as arbiter for enforcement and >> > what the stages of remediation available to the arbiters are" >> > >> > is a noun phrase. So you said "I don't think [noun phrase]." >> > I suspect you want to say "I don't think [noun phrase] would be >> > difficult." ... or something like that. >> > >> > Steve >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Twisted-Python mailing list >> > Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com >> > http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Twisted-Python mailing list >> Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com >> http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Twisted-Python mailing list > Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com > http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python > >
_______________________________________________ Twisted-Python mailing list Twisted-Python@twistedmatrix.com http://twistedmatrix.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/twisted-python
